HILLARY: STRASSEL – eMAILS; RASMUSSEN – Sanders; WASHINGTON TIMES: Hillary’s chickens.
LEADS: GASPARINO – Trumps daily speech; RUSHBO – Sneaky Trump campaign; HENNINGER – Deplorables; NAPOLITANO – FBI hiding?
PA: KNEPPER – Where to cut?
END NOTES: LEVIN 9/15/16; CASPIT – Bibi backs Donald?
HILLARY . . .
“Could Hillary Tell Us What Percentage of Muslims Are ‘Deplorable’? Ann Coulter
Kimberley Strassel, WSJ: “Democrats’ Deplorable Emails”
“How much to buy an ambassadorship? The answer is in the latest hacked messages.
“. . . What makes the continuing flood of emails instructive is that nobody was ever meant to see these documents. Hillary Clinton set up a private server to shield her communications as secretary of state from the public. She gave top aide Huma Abedin an account on that server. She never envisioned that an FBI investigation and lawsuits would drag her conversations into the light.
“The Democratic National Committee and Colin Powell (an honorary Democrat) likewise believed their correspondence secure. But both were successfully targeted by hackers, who released the latest round of enlightening emails this week.
“These emails provide what the public always complains it doesn’t have: unfiltered evidence of what top politicians do and think. And what a picture they collectively paint of the party of the left. For years, Democrats have steadfastly portrayed Republicans as elitist fat cats who buy elections, as backroom bosses who rig the laws in their favor, as brass-knuckle lobbyists and operators who get special access. It turns out that this is the precise description of the Democratic Party. They know of what they speak.
“The latest hack of the DNC—courtesy of WikiLeaks via Guccifer 2.0—shows that Mrs. Clinton wasn’t alone in steering favors to big donors. Among the documents leaked is one that lists the party’s largest fundraisers/donors as of 2008. Of the top 57 cash cows 18 ended up with ambassadorships. “The largest fundraiser listed, Matthew Barzun, who drummed up $3.5 million for Mr. Obama’s first campaign, was named ambassador to Sweden and then ambassador to the United Kingdom. The second-largest, Julius Genachowski, was named the head of the Federal Communications Commission. The third largest, Frank Sanchez,was named undersecretary of commerce. . .”
Rasmussen: “Which Democrat Should Replace Hillary?”
“The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 48% of Likely Democratic Voters believe Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s primary rival, should be their party’s nominee if health issues forced her out of the race. Twenty-two percent (22%) say Vice President Joe Biden should be the nominee, while only 14% opt for Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, the current Democratic vice presidential candidate. Nine percent (9%) of Democrats think it should be someone else. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
“Among all likely voters, it’s a closer contest. Thirty-six percent (36%) choose Sanders, 20% Biden and 14% Kaine. But 21% think the Democratic nominee should be someone else.
Washington Times: “Roosting with Hillary’s Chickens”
“. . .The panic in the streets has been fed by those in her own party. Indeed, the latest media rage against Donald Trump is that he is behaving like a gentleman, standing back not to interfere with Hillary while she inflicts her own wounds. Ted Strickland, the former Democratic governor of Ohio trying to unseat Sen. Rob Portman, the incumbent Republican, introduced Tim Kaine, Hillary’s running mate, with an assurance that he “is wonderfully prepared to be the vice president or the president if that ever became necessary.” That was hardly reassurance that the health of the candidate at the top of the ticket was at no risk of making that necessary.
“Such an introduction, and its dark implications, naturally had to be ‘clarified,’ and within hours he was telling reporters that he was talking about the future. After Don Fowler, the party chairman in the Clinton administration, suggested that it might be time to look again at the party procedures to name an emergency presidential nominee, he, too, slipped into clarification mode. What he meant was that there would be time enough for that after Hillary is safely on Pennsylvania Avenue again.
“Morbid or not, this is talk that Hillary brought on herself. The party is paying the price for her paranoia and secrecy, and only now are the senior Democrats, who can’t believe she has been so uninspiring, inept and prone to boneheaded mistakes, looking for an explanation. They think in their bones that Donald Trump is a terrible candidate, that their ideas are better than his. Is this emergent Hillary all they can feed an adoring public everyone imagined was waiting impatiently to vote for her?”
Charles Gasparino, NYPost: “Trump should give this speech every day to Nov. 8”
“. . . Voters have “trustworthiness” issues with both candidates. But when you drill down on what Americans care most about, it’s the economy. And this is where Hillary is possibly at her weakest, supporting and at times promising to expand upon the policies that have given the country low growth, massive under-employment and putrid wage growth for the vast middle class.
“Yes, Trump was light on the specifics of how he was going to pay for some of his promises, like child-tax credits and infrastructure investments. And of course no Trump address on the economy would be complete without an obligatory and nonsensical attack on free trade — sure enough he mentioned a possible trade war with China and how he’ll renegotiate NAFTA.
“Luckily, he kept much of his trade nonsense to a minimum, and instead offered a stirring, largely Reaganesque vision of America’s economic future where he would cut taxes ($4.4 trillion of them) and simplify the tax code (from seven to just three brackets).
“He would also lower our onerous corporate tax rate to 15 percent, making the United States more competitive globally, and cut job-killing regulations that squeeze corporate profits and cost jobs.
“It was a stark contrast to the policies of the past eight years, which Clinton vows to repeat and build upon.. .”
Rushbo: “The Trump Campaign Is Sneaking Up on the People Who Don’t Understand It”
“The Drive-Bys are trying to say, “It’s just a temporary blip and it’s all based on the video of Hillary having the seizure.” And another thing. You know it could well be that she hasn’t seen that and some of the comments that she and Bill have made, maybe they haven’t seen that video but everybody else has seen it. Maybe that’s why there’s such a disconnect with what they’re saying versus what people think is wrong with her. So, anyway, then Luntz cites the Monmouth poll: 66% of Trump supporters are appalled by Hillary. They’re so appalled by Hillary, they’re gonna support Trump until the end. Frank Luntz, what’s going on here?
“LUNTZ: I believe that the polling is going to move even further in Trump’s direction over the next 72 hours because of what happened this weekend. They don’t like her insults. They don’t think she told the truth about her health. We see this trend everywhere. If Donald Trump can continue his discipline and continue his focus on policy without the traditional insults? You’re gonna see him go ahead in states like Iowa, you’re gonna see him catch up in New Hampshire — and the state that I’m watching in particular, Pennsylvania. I am convinced that he’s gonna start to close the gap there as well.”
Daniel Henninger, WSJ: “Les Déplorables”
“Hillary Clinton names the five phobias of Donald Trump’s political supporters.
Hillary Clinton’s comment that half of Donald Trump’s supporters are “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic”—a heck of a lot of phobia for anyone to lug around all day—puts back in play what will be seen as one of the 2016 campaign’s defining forces: the revolt of the politically incorrect.
“They may not live at the level of Victor Hugo’s “Les Misérables,” but it was only a matter of time before les déplorables—our own writhing mass of unheard Americans—rebelled against the intellectual elites’ ancien régime of political correctness.
It remains to be seen what effect Hillary’s five phobias will have on the race, which tightened even before these remarks and Pneumonia-gate. The two events produced one of Mrs. Clinton’s worst weeks in opposite ways.
“As with the irrepressible email server, Mrs. Clinton’s handling of her infirmity—“I feel great,” the pneumonia-infected candidate said while hugging a little girl—deepened the hole of distrust she lives in. At the same time, her dismissal, at Barbra Streisand’s LGBT fundraiser, of uncounted millions of Americans as deplorables had the ring of genuine belief.
“Perhaps sensing that public knowledge of what she really thinks could be a political liability, Mrs. Clinton went on to describe “people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them . . . and they’re just desperate for change.”
“She is of course describing the people in Charles Murray’s recent and compelling book on cultural disintegration among the working class, “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010.” This is indeed the bedrock of the broader Trump base.
“Mrs. Clinton is right that they feel the system has let them down. There is a legitimate argument over exactly when the rising digital economy started transferring income away from blue-collar workers and toward the “creative class” of Google and Facebookemployees, no few of whom are smug progressives who think the landmass seen from business class between San Francisco and New York is pocked with deplorable, phobic Americans. Naturally, they’ll vote for the status quo, which is Hillary.
But in the eight years available to Barack Obama to do something about what rankles the lower-middle class—white, black or brown—the non-employed and underemployed grew. A lot of them will vote for Donald Trump because they want a radical mid-course correction. Which Mrs. Clinton isn’t and never will be. . .”
Andrew Napolitano, Washington Times: “What is the FBI hiding?”
“The bureau has conspired to keep Congress in the dark about its Clinton probe
“. . . Yet the FBI — which knew of the post-subpoena destruction of evidence and which acknowledged that Mrs. Clinton failed to return thousands of her work-related emails as she had been ordered by a federal judge to do, notwithstanding at least three of her assertions to the contrary while under oath — chose to overlook the evidence of not only espionage but also obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence, perjury and misleading Congress.
“As if to defend itself in the face of this most un-FBI-like behavior, the FBI then released to the public selected portions of its work product, which purported to back up its decision to recommend against the prosecution of Mrs. Clinton. Normally, the FBI gathers evidence and works with federal prosecutors and federal grand juries to build cases against targets in criminal probes, and its recommendations to prosecutors are confidential.
“But in Mrs. Clinton’s case, the hierarchy of the Department of Justice removed itself from the chain of command because of the orchestrated impropriety of Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch and Bill Clinton, who met in private on the attorney general’s plane at a time when both Bill and Hillary Clinton were subjects of FBI criminal investigations. That left the FBI to have the final say about prosecution — or so the FBI and the Department of Justice would have us all believe.
“It is hard to believe that the FBI was free to do its work, and it is probably true that the FBI was restrained by the White House early on. There were numerous aberrations in the investigation. There was no grand jury; no subpoenas were issued; no search warrants were served. Two people claimed to have received immunity, yet the statutory prerequisite for immunity — giving testimony before a grand or trial jury — was never present.
“Because many members of Congress do not believe that the FBI acted free of political interference, they demanded to see the full FBI files in the case, not just the selected portions of the files that the FBI had released. In the case of the House, the FBI declined to surrender its files, and the agent it sent to testify about them declined to reveal their contents. This led to a dramatic service of a subpoena by the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on that FBI agent while he was testifying — all captured on live nationally broadcast television.
“Now the FBI, which usually serves subpoenas and executes search warrants, is left with the alternative of complying with this unwanted subpoena by producing its entire file or arguing to a federal judge why it should not be compelled to do so.
“On the Senate side, matters are even more out of hand. There, in response to a request from the Senate Judiciary Committee, the FBI sent both classified and unclassified materials to the Senate safe room. The Senate safe room is a secure location that is available only to senators and their senior staff, all of whom must surrender their mobile devices and writing materials and swear in writing not to reveal whatever they see while in the room before they are permitted to enter.
“According to Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the FBI violated federal law by commingling classified and unclassified materials in the safe room, thereby making it unlawful for senators to discuss publicly the unclassified material.
“Imposing such a burden of silence on U.S. senators about unclassified materials is unlawful and unconstitutional. . .”
PA . . .
Leo Knepper, CAP: “Let Them Know Where to Cut”
“The Pennsylvania House and Senate will be returning to Harrisburg on September 19 and 26 respectively. As we noted last week, they will likely be looking for ways to make up for the revenue shortfalls that they created by overspending. Members of the General Assembly have certainly been hearing from big government special interests who want to make sure that they get their share of your money.
“Please, take a moment to contact your Representative and Senator. We’ve created an easy way to send an email highlighting some of the waste included in the budget, so the General Assembly knows where to start cutting.
“Click here to get started.”
END NOTES . . .
Mark Levin 09/15/16
“On Thursday’s Mark Levin show, It’s amazing how a demagogue like President Obama has a 58% approval rating. He and the left have done so much damage to this country. Obama and the left are so comprehensive in changing this society. They control and run schools, most of the media and know how to pack the courts with leftists. We can’t even require people to show ID to vote and yet for every other walk of life you need it. If you object to the left’s agenda, then you are considered a racist or homophobe. It’s up to Americans to teach their kids conservative principles as government schools can’t be relied on.
“In addition, we have a Republican candidate, Donald Trump, who wants to expand Medicaid, but that’s what Obamacare does. How can you repeal Obamacare if you are embracing Obamacare? Expanding Medicaid beyond its current boundaries is not only irresponsible, but a bad idea.
“Later, Trump just had a large polling rally and now has a significant increase in the polls after Hillary’s collapse. A few weeks ago the polls in battleground states were moving in Hillary’s direction. The situation is volatile and voters in the end may decide on the candidate based on the candidate’s negatives and personality.
“Finally, Brain Mast, running for Congress in Florida’s 18th district, calls in to discuss the smears by his opponent, Randy Perkins.”
Ben Caspit, al-Monitor: “Is Bibi a secret Trump supporter?”
“. . . The murky relationship between the Clinton family and Netanyahu has been reported on by Al-Monitor in previous articles. Netanyahu is keenly aware that should Clinton end up in the White House, it will be much harder for him to pit the Israeli public against her than he did against Obama. Obama, the first black president of the United States, bears “Hussein” as his middle name — a name that does not exactly inspire confidence in Israel, to say the least.
“Clinton’s near collapse at this critical juncture of her campaign is viewed in Netanyahu’s court as a real miracle. The day after, the screaming (printed edition) headline of the pro-Netanyahu newspaper Israel Today (‘’The collapse, and the questions raised by it’’), hinted at the new mood among the Israeli Republicans. It is not that Netanyahu knows what he would face with Trump, say his people, but simply that he knows exactly what to expect with Clinton. And he certainly does not long for that at all.”